I do not claim to have any substantial progress on this problem here. Instead, the paper makes a small observation about the hyper-dissipative version of the Navier-Stokes equations, namely

for some . It is a folklore result that global regularity for this equation holds for ; the significance of the exponent is that it is energy-critical, in the sense that the scaling which preserves this particular hyper-dissipative Navier-Stokes equation, also preserves the energy.

Values of below (including, unfortunately, the case , which is the original Navier-Stokes equation) are supercritical and thus establishing global regularity beyond the reach of most known methods (see my earlier blog post for more discussion).

A few years ago, I observed (in the case of the spherically symmetric wave equation) that this “criticality barrier” had a very small amount of flexibility to it, in that one could push a critical argument to a slightly supercritical one by exploiting spacetime integral estimates a little bit more. I realised recently that the same principle applied to hyperdissipative Navier-Stokes; here, the relevant spacetime integral estimate is the energy dissipation inequality

which ensures that the energy dissipation is locally integrable (and in fact globally integrable) in time.

In this paper I push the global regularity results by a fraction of a logarithm from towards . For instance, the argument shows that the logarithmically supercritical equation

(0)

admits global smooth solutions.

The argument is in fact quite simple (the paper is seven pages in length), and relies on known technology; one just applies the energy method and a logarithmically modified Sobolev inequality in the spirit of a well-known inequality of Brezis and Wainger. It looks like it will take quite a bit of effort though to improve the logarithmic factor much further.

One way to explain the tiny bit of wiggle room beyond the critical case is as follows. The standard energy method approach to the critical Navier-Stokes equation relies at one stage on Gronwall’s inequality, which among other things asserts that if a time-dependent non-negative quantity E(t) obeys the differential inequality

(1)

and was locally integrable, then E does not blow up in time; in fact, one has the inequality

.

A slight modification of the argument shows that one can replace the linear inequality with a slightly superlinear inequality. For instance, the differential inequality

(2)

also does not blow up in time; indeed, a separation of variables argument gives the explicit double-exponential bound

(let’s take and all functions smooth, to avoid technicalities). It is this ability to go beyond Gronwall’s inequality by a little bit which is really at the heart of the logarithmically supercritical phenomenon. In the paper, I establish an inequality basically of the shape (2), where is a suitably high-regularity Sobolev norm of , and is basically the energy dissipation mentioned earlier. The point is that the logarithmic loss of in the dissipation can eventually be converted (by a Brezis-Wainger type argument) to a logarithmic loss in the high-regularity energy, as this energy can serve as a proxy for the frequency , which in turn serves as a proxy for the Laplacian .

To put it another way, with a linear exponential growth model, such as , it takes a constant amount of time for E to double, and so E never becomes infinite in finite time. With an equation such as , the time taken for E to double from (say) to now shrinks to zero, but only as quickly as the harmonic series , so it still takes an infinite amount of time for E to blow up. But because the divergence of is logarithmically slow, the growth of E is now a double exponential rather than a single one. So there is a little bit of room to exploit between exponential growth and blowup.

Interestingly, there is a heuristic argument that suggests that the half-logarithmic loss in (0) can be widened to a full logarithmic loss, which I give below the fold.

For commenters

To enter in LaTeX in comments, use $latex <Your LaTeX code>$ (without the < and > signs, of course; in fact, these signs should be avoided as they can cause formatting errors). See the about page for details and for other commenting policy.